78 Batangas V Romulo.docx

[G.R. No. 152774. May 27, 2004] THE PROVINCE OF BATANGAS vs. HON. ALBERTO G. ROMULO CALLEJO, SR., J.: FACTS – On December 7, 1998, then President Estrada issued E.O. No. 48 entitled ESTABLISHING A PROGRAM FOR DEVOLUTION ADJUSTMENT AND EQUALIZATION. The Oversight Committee, constituted under Section 533(b) of the LGC, has been tasked to issue the rules and regulations necessary for its effective implementation. Further, to address the funding shortfalls of functions and services devolved to the LGUs and other funding requirements of the program, the Devolution Adjustment and Equalization Fund was created. The DBM was directed to set aside an amount to be determined by the Oversight Committee based on surveys undertaken by the DILG. For 1999 and the succeeding years, the corresponding amount required to sustain the program was to be incorporated in the annual GAA. The Oversight Committee has been authorized to issue the implementing rules and regulations governing the equitable allocation and distribution of said fund to the LGUs. The LGSEF in the GAA of 1999 In the GAA of 1999, the program was renamed as the LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE EQUALIZATION FUND (LGSEF). Under said appropriations law, the amount of P96B was allotted as the share of the LGUs in the internal revenue taxes. The GAA contained the following proviso:

Cities : 20% Municipalities : 40% This is applied to the P2B after the approved amounts granted to individual provinces, cities and municipalities as assistance to cover decrease in 1999 IRA share due to reduction in land area have been taken out. 2. The remaining P1B shall be earmarked to support local affirmative action projects and other priority initiatives submitted by LGUs to the Oversight Committee on Devolution for approval in accordance with its prescribed guidelines as promulgated and adopted by the resolutions. This remaining amount was intended to respond to the urgent need for additional funds assistance, otherwise not available within the parameters of other existing fund sources. For LGUs to be eligible for funding under the one-billion-peso portion of the LGSEF, the OCD promulgated a criteria for eligibility. Further, the LGUs were required to identify the projects eligible for funding under the one-billion-peso portion of the LGSEF and submit the project proposals thereof and other documentary requirements to the DILG for appraisal. The project proposals that passed the DILGs appraisal would then be submitted to the Oversight Committee for review, evaluation and approval. Upon its approval, the Oversight Committee would then serve notice to the DBM for the preparation of the Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) and Notice of Cash Allocation (NCA) to effect the release of funds to the said LGUs. The LGSEF in the GAA of 2000

... PROVIDED, That the amount of FIVE BILLION PESOS (P5,000,000,000) shall be earmarked for the Local Government Service Equalization Fund for the funding requirements of projects and activities arising from the full and efficient implementation of devolved functions and services of local government units pursuant to the LGC, PROVIDED, FURTHER, That such amount shall be released to the local government units subject to the implementing rules and regulations x x x that may be prescribed by the Oversight Committee x x x.

Under the GAA of 2000, the amount of P111B was allotted as the share of the LGUs in the internal revenue taxes. As in the GAA of 1999, the GAA of 2000 contained a proviso earmarking five billion pesos of the IRA for the LGSEF. This proviso, found in the Internal Revenue Allotment, was similarly worded as that contained in the GAA of 1999.

The allocation scheme adopted pursuant to resolutions by the Oversight Committee provided that the P5B LGSEF was to be allocated as follows: a. The first P2B of the LGSEF shall be allocated in accordance with the codal formula sharing scheme as prescribed under the 1991 Local Government Code; b. The second P2B of the LGSEF shall be allocated in accordance with a modified 1992 cost of devolution fund (CODEF) sharing scheme, as recommended by the respective leagues of provinces, cities and municipalities to the OCD. The modified CODEF sharing formula is as follows: Province : 40%

The petitioner assails as unconstitutional and void the provisos in the GAAs relating to the LGSEF. Similarly assailed are the Oversight Committees Resolutions issued pursuant thereto. The petitioner submits that the assailed provisos in the GAAs and the OCD resolutions, insofar as they earmarked P5B of the IRA of the LGUs for the LGSEF and imposed conditions for the release thereof, violate the Constitution and the Local Government Code of 1991. S6A10 CONST is invoked as it mandates that the just share of the LGUs shall be automatically released to them. S18 and 286 of the LGC, which enjoin that the just

The Petitioners Case

share of the LGUs shall be automatically and directly released to them without need of further action are, likewise, cited. The petitioner posits that to subject the release of the P5B portion of the IRA, classified as the LGSEF, to compliance by the LGUs with the implementing rules and regulations, contravenes the explicit directive of the Constitution that the LGUs share in the national taxes shall be automatically released to them. The petitioner also contends that to vest the Oversight Committee with the authority to determine the distribution and release of the LGSEF, which is a part of the IRA of the LGUs, is anathema to the principle of local autonomy as embodied in the Constitution and the LGC. Another alleged infringement by the assailed resolutions is the improper amendment to S285 of the LGC on the percentage sharing of the IRA among the LGUs. That the formula has been improperly amended or modified, with respect to the fivebillion-peso portion of the IRA allotted for the LGSEF, by the assailed OCD resolutions as they invariably provided for a different sharing scheme. The modifications allegedly constitute an illegal amendment by the executive branch of a substantive law. The Respondents Arguments The respondents contend that the assailed provisos in the GAAs and the assailed resolutions issued by the Oversight Committee are not constitutionally infirm. That S6A10 CONST does not specify that the just share of the LGUs shall be determined solely by the LGC. That the phrase “as determined by law” in the provision means that there exists no limitation on the power of Congress to determine what is the just share of the LGUs in the national taxes. In other words, Congress is the arbiter of what should be the just share of the LGUs in the national taxes. The respondents further theorize that S285 of the LGC, which provides for the percentage sharing of the IRA among the LGUs, was not intended to be a fixed determination of their just share in the national taxes. Congress may enact other laws providing for a different sharing formula. S285 of the LGC was merely intended to be the default share of the LGUs to do away with the need to determine annually by law their just share. That the LGUs have no vested right in a permanent or fixed percentage as Congress may increase or decrease the just share of the LGUs in accordance with what it believes is appropriate for their operation. There is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits Congress from making such determination through the appropriations laws.

Substantive Issue – WoN the subject provisions in the GAAs and the resolutions issued pursuant thereto contravene the constitutional policy of local autonomy - YES Consistent with the principle of local autonomy, the Constitution confines the Presidents power over the LGUs to one of general supervision excluding the power of control. The LGC was enacted to flesh out the mandate of the Constitution. The State policy on local autonomy is amplified in S2 and S6thereof S6 mandates that: (1) the LGUs shall have a just share in the national taxes; (2) the just share shall be determined by law; and (3) the just share shall be automatically released to the LGUs. The LGC underscores the automatic release of the LGUs just share in S18 and S286 thereof. (Power to Generate and Apply Resources, and Automatic Release of Shares) Being automatic, the LGUs are not required to perform any act to receive the just share accruing to them from the national coffers. Construing S286 of the LGC, we held that a basic feature of local fiscal autonomy is the automatic release of the shares of LGUs in the National internal revenue. This is mandated by no less than the Constitution. The LGC specifies further that the release shall be made directly to the LGU concerned within five (5) days after every quarter of the year and shall not be subject to any lien or holdback that may be imposed by the national government for whatever purpose. As a rule, the term SHALL is a word of command that must be given a compulsory meaning. The provision is, therefore, IMPERATIVE. The just share of the LGUs is incorporated as the IRA in the GAA enacted by Congress annually. ITC, under the assailed provisos in the GAAs, a portion of the IRA in the amount of P5B was earmarked for the LGSEF, and these provisos imposed the condition that such amount shall be released to the local government units subject to the implementing rules and regulations that may be prescribed by the Oversight Committee on Devolution. Pursuant thereto, the Oversight Committee, through the assailed OCD resolutions, apportioned the five billion pesos LGSEF such that: For 1999 P2 billion - allocated according to Sec. 285 LGC P2 billion - Modified Sharing Formula (Provinces 40%; Cities 20%; Municipalities 40%) P1 billion projects (LAAP) approved by OCD.

The Ruling of the Court The crucial legal issue submitted for resolution of this Court entails the proper legal interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions.

For 2000 P3.5 billion Modified Sharing Formula (Provinces 26%;Cities 23%; Municipalities 35%; Barangays 16%); P1.5 billion projects (LAAP) approved by the OCD.

For 2001 P3 billion Modified Sharing Formula (Provinces 25%;Cities 25%; Municipalities 35%; Barangays 15%) P1.9 billion priority projects P100 million capability building fund. Significantly, the LGSEF could not be released to the LGUs without the Oversight Committees prior approval. Further, with respect to the portion of the LGSEF allocated for various projects of the LGUs, the Oversight Committee laid down guidelines and mechanisms that the LGUs had to comply with before they could avail of funds from this portion of the LGSEF. To the Courts mind, the entire process involving the distribution and release of the LGSEF is constitutionally impermissible. The LGSEF is part of the IRA or just share of the LGUs in the national taxes. To subject its distribution and release to the vagaries of the implementing rules and regulations, including the guidelines and mechanisms unilaterally prescribed by the Oversight Committee from time to time, as sanctioned by the assailed provisos and resolutions, makes the release not automatic, a flagrant violation of the constitutional and statutory mandate that the just share of the LGUs shall be automatically released to them. The LGUs are, thus, placed at the mercy of the Oversight Committee. Indeed, the Oversight Committee exercising discretion, even control, over the distribution and release of a portion of the IRA, the LGSEF, is an anathema to and subversive of the principle of local autonomy as embodied in the Constitution. Moreover, it finds no statutory basis at all as the Oversight Committee was created merely to formulate the rules and regulations for the efficient and effective implementation of the LGC to ensure compliance with the principles of local autonomy as defined under the Constitution. In fact, its creation was placed under the title of Transitory Provisions, signifying its ad hoc character. The Oversight Committees authority is undoubtedly limited to the implementation of the Local Government Code of 1991, not to supplant or subvert the same. Neither can it exercise control over the IRA, or even a portion thereof, of the LGUs. The assailed provisos in the GAAs and the resolutions cannot amend S285 of the LGC. S284 of the LGC provides that, beginning the third year of its effectivity, the LGUs share in the national internal revenue taxes shall be 40%. This percentage is fixed and may not be reduced x x x Thus, from the above provision, the only possible exception to the mandatory automatic release of the LGUs IRA is if the national internal revenue collections for the current fiscal year is less than 40 percent of the collections of the preceding third fiscal year, in which case what should be automatically released shall be a proportionate amount of the collections for the current fiscal year.

ITC, there is no allegation that the national internal revenue tax collections for the fiscal years of the subject GAAs have fallen compared to the preceding three fiscal years. S285 then specifies how the IRA shall be allocated among the LGUs: The share of local government units in the internal revenue allotment shall be allocated in the following manner: (a) Provinces Twenty-three (23%) (b) Cities Twenty-three percent (23%); (c) Municipalities Thirty-four (34%); and (d) Barangays Twenty percent (20%). However, this percentage sharing is not followed with respect to the P5B LGSEF as the assailed resolutions, implementing the assailed provisos in the GAAs. For example, for 1999, P2 billion of the LGSEF was allocated as follows: Provinces 40%; Cities 20%; Municipalities 40%. For 2000, P3.5 billion of the LGSEF was allocated in this manner: Provinces 26%; Cities 23%; Municipalities 35%; Barangays 26%. For 2001, P3 billion of the LGSEF was allocated, thus: Provinces 25%; Cities 25%; Municipalities 35%; Barangays 15%. The respondents argue that this modification is allowed since the Constitution does not specify that the just share of the LGUs shall only be determined by LGC. That it is within the power of Congress to enact other laws, including the GAAs, to increase or decrease the just share of the LGUs. This contention is untenable. The LGC is a substantive law. And while it is conceded that Congress may amend any of the provisions therein, it may not do so through appropriations laws or GAAs. Any amendment to the LGC should be done in a separate law, not in the appropriations law, because Congress cannot include in a general appropriation bill matters that should be more properly enacted in a separate legislation. A general appropriations bill is a special type of legislation, whose content is limited to specified sums of money dedicated to a specific purpose or a separate fiscal unit. Any provision therein which is intended to amend another law is considered an inappropriate provision. Increasing or decreasing the IRA of the LGUs or modifying their percentage sharing therein, which are fixed in the Local Government Code of 1991, are matters of general and substantive law. To permit Congress to undertake these amendments through the GAAs, as the respondents contend, would be to give Congress the unbridled authority to unduly infringe the fiscal autonomy of the LGUs, and thus put the same in jeopardy every year. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed provisos in the General Appropriations Acts of 1999, 2000 and 2001, and the assailed OCD Resolutions, are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SO ORDERED.